Just a short report. [right after the launch] we've got telemetry from the 2nd stage of Zenit launcher, it shows normal separation. After the first loop the one and only [SC] telemetry session has been received, it showed deployment of the solar arrays, constant solar orientation and normal work of all systems. After the second loop we found the SC on the initial orbit, it was silent. No telemetry since that. Previous night at Baikonur there were failed attempts to restart the onboard computer. This attempts will be repeated this night.

The reason I am asking this is people like Jim O, Liss, ect are providing excellent updates on what is going on, but at the same time there are questions and thoughts that might be better handled in a different thread.

For instance. I keep wondering in the back of my mind the following.

There are really two types of propellant tanks on this mission. Those that are used at Mars and those that are used for Earth departure. One would assume that the Mars tanks are built to prevent freezing using heaters, insulation, ect. Since the tanks used for leaving earth are used and discarded in the first few hours of flight they have no need for that extra insulation, heaters, and thermal control. So how long in LEO until they start having problems with fuel freezing preventing earth departure?

Second, Jim keeps comparing this to USA 193. Is it really the same, the propellant tank was buried inside of USA 193 providing protect against reentry. Phobos-Grunt's tanks are not buried in such a manner. Will the exposed tanks really behave in a similar manner on reentry? I suspect with the exposed tanks they will breach early and burn? But that is pure speculation, and I am not trying to take a swipe at Jim O here.

The newest theory conveyed by a poster at NK is that the spacecraft rebooted on the second orbit and cannot communicate with the ground stations because the spacecraft was reset to the mode before launch (a bit similar to the sudden loss of contact with Spirit on Mars back in 2004). Right now P-G is within the view of ESA's ground station at Kourou, so fingers crossed...

The newest theory conveyed by a poster at NK is that the spacecraft rebooted on the second orbit and cannot communicate with the ground stations because the spacecraft was reset to the mode before launch (a bit similar to the sudden loss of contact with Spirit on Mars back in 2004). Right now P-G is within the view of ESA's ground station at Kourou, so fingers crossed...

Written by a guy who obviously is involved in the program and was the first to announce something was wrong. Basically the message says that there has been no contact with the spacecraft yesterday at all, it is not sending any telemetry. The reason for that is completely unknown, they will try to send a message for rebooting the spacecraft.

The same guy said before that in the very beginning that just after reaching orbit they had contact with the craft, it was having control of attitude and its solar arrays were open. Something happened when the craft started the first burn.

.... according to the Space Review (http://thespacereview.com/article/1966/1) Phobos-Grunt "is the heaviest solar system explorer ever (more than twice the second-heaviest, Cassini).", not just the heaviest built in the former USSR.

I don't accept that claim, since the probe's mass is presented in LEO parking orbit, prior to insertion on the trans-Mars route. More than half of that mass disappears by the time it's on interplanetary cruise.

I agree.

If one were to compare inserted LEO mass, the Magellan deployment from the shuttle was heavier (18 metric-ton) . The 13.5-metric-ton Phobos-Grunt spacecraft includes the propellant used for TMI and a tank that is jettisoned between burns. It also propellant for MOI. This is no different than the IUS for TVI and STAR-48 motor for VOI on Magellan.

So a true measure of the size/mass of spacecraft would be its mass after leaving LEO

As to what "happened" at burn-1 ignition time, are we satisfied that Brazil observers saw NOTHING -- no flash, no indication of ANY plume -- so it's safe to conclude the failure was on the commanding side, not the engine side?